(First posted 6/28/2013. Revised and expanded 4/26/2017) The Opel Rekord can be best compared to the traditional full-sized Chevrolet, in terms of the role they both played in their respective continents. Yes, there were bigger Opels, but they’re more like an Oldsmobile, Buick or Cadillac. The Rekord was mostly a conservative car, which evolved steadily though its nine generations, but never forgot what its purpose was: to provide decent and reliable transportation, at a favorable price point. It often had a bit of flair, thanks to stylistic influence from Detroit, and always at least some genuinely good qualities. But it was rarely exceptional, and that may well explain why this generation (E1&E2) was the last to carry that storied name. Let’s do a quick mini-history of all those Olympias and Rekords that preceded it.

Although the Rekord name didn’t arrive until 1953, its direct predecessor was the Olympia. And of all the cars in this long line, it was the most progressive, in being the very first mass-produced car built in Germany with an all-steel unitized body (monocoque). That saved some 400lbs (180kg) compared to its predecessor, the Opel 1.3. It also had an independent front suspension. So it was pretty advanced for the times. Its 1.3 L ohv four made some 24 hp, enough to supposedly get it up to 100kmh (61mph).

In 1938, the Olympia (OL38) it got a restyle and a larger 1.5 L version of the four, now making 37hp, enough to scoot it down the new autobahn at 112km/h (70mph). And yes, the similarity of its front end styling to a ’38 Chevy or Pontiac is obvious. These were quite popular cars; some 168k of these two versions were built between 1935 and 1940.

And as a point of comparison, these cars cost some 2,500 – 3,000 Reichsmark compared to the KdF wagen’s (VW) proposed price of 999 RM. No wonder the rest of the German industry was very concerned about the planned VW. And sure enough, within not too many years after the war, it fulfilled its original goal and surpassed Opel to become the #1 automaker in Germany, and soon all of Europe (and now the world).

After the war, the Olympia went back into production in late 1947, in virtually unchanged form.

The Olympia got a face and fender lift for 1950, but clearly it was beginning to show its 1935 roots. It had to soldier along like this until 1953.

Its new replacement was the first to carry the Rekord name, as the 1953 Olympia Rekord. And it’s all too obvious that it proudly showed design influences of Mother GM. For 1953, it was modern and quite desirable, and this was during the time when American cars and their design were still held in high regard in Europe. From the beginning to the end, Opels appealed to those who both had a soft spot for “Ami” styling, as well as an appreciation for a more conservative approach to car building.

Germany as well as the rest of Europe (especially France) was a hot bed of radical new approaches to car building right after the war, part of the whole immediate post war energy to build a truly new world, one assumes. Front wheel drive, two strokes, ultra-light and highly aerodynamic bodies; these creative energies gave birth to a raft of exciting new approaches to building small and larger cars. One classic example of that is the Panhard (full history here), which grew out of a radical engineering exercise utilizing a cast aluminum chassis/frame. Others were even more exotic.

Compared to all of this, as well as the massively popular VW, Opels represented almost an oasis of traditional thought, but always wrapped in up-to-date clothes. Not surprisingly, Opel’s approach tended to make them increasingly popular with the working classes, who as their incomes rose to be able to afford cars, were both attracted to their honest simplicity and pizazz. Like a Chevy…. This one is from the 1956-1957 era; Germany’s “Tri-Fives”.

Of course, many working folks couldn’t yet afford a new Rekord, which was a class (or two) more expensive than the VW Beetle. That was actually a huge failing on Opel’s part, to completely ignore the smaller car market (until the 1962 Kadett), which exploded on the back of the Volkswagen. It’s instructive to remember that Opel was once Germany’s biggest auto maker before the war, and either the biggest or second-biggest in all of Europe. But VW pushed Opel into the number two spot, and Opel became sandwiched between VW and Mercedes, which essentially is somewhat the problem still facing Opel today, although the problem has become even more acute in recent years with the rise of the premium brands.

The Rekord P1 (1957-1960) pictured above was also a very successful import to the US, sold at Buick dealers, and made Opel one of the biggest import brands during the fifties’ European invasion.

I didn’t start this with the intent to become a history of all the Rekords, but since we’re almost half way there, let’s show the succession of styles, thanks to images from Wikipedia and other sources.The P2 was built from 1960-1963, and has a front end first seen on the 1958 Cadillac Skylight by Pininfarina. The point being that Opel didn’t just only shrink Chevys for design inspiration. Engine sizes were either a 1.5 or 1.7L four with 50-60 hp.

The Rekord A appeared in 1963, with a decided hint of Chevy II to it.

The Rekord B was an evolution of the A, and its rear end doesn’t belie its Chevyness either. An Opel Bel Air with a hint of gen2 Corvair.

The Rekord C from 1966-1972 brought a major restyle, as well as the new CIH (cam in head) engines, with the 1900 version (up to 106 hp) providing quite decent performance for the times. Starting with this generation, a six cylinder version of the same basic car became available as the Commodore. The Pontiac of Opels.

The 1971 Rekord D was designed by Chuck Jordan, and showed a definite design language that was/would be seen on other GM cars, including the smaller Ascona, as well as others.

The coupe was especially successful, stylistically, and in the yes of many, represents the high water mark for line. It goes without saying that the Rekord C and D also were the basis for other GM International cars, including Holdens.

That brings us to our featured car, shot and posted at the Cohort by r0b0tr10t. Anyone who visited or lived in Germany during the eighties will know what a familiar sight these were, especially as taxis. Opel was a pioneer in following Mercedes with diesel engines in 1972, well before VW. This made diesel Rekords very popular in the taxi trade.

The Rekord E arrived in 1977, and was an evolution of the D. A substantially face-lifted version is called the E2 (above), and arrived in 1982, and was built until 1986, when the name was finally buried in favor of the Omega, which also received a new independent rear suspension to replace the well-located solid rear axle on these cars. All of the later Rekords were pretty consistently praised for their competent handling, and all-round well-balanced manners. Sophisticated, brilliant, advanced and very refined they mostly weren’t ever, but that was true to the brand and consistent with all the cars that carried the name; an unbroken Rekord.

77 Comments

1971 record D used to be assembled in iran by GM from 72 till 77 under the name Chevrolet royal(2800cc engine)&Chevrolet iran(2500cc).my dad used to have one for a while,very reliable&interesting car for 70s standards.

The Rekord E was sometimes seen in the UK but in nowhere near the same numbers as it’s Vauxhall Carlton relative.The Rekord C is a stunning looker,make mine a 6 please!I remember a 60s Opel that looked like a bit like a Dodge Charger The chrome trim on the side of the P1 looks very much like the trim on a Buick.

The Rekord D was the inspiration for the 75 GM RWD X car redesigns. Compare it and the Opel 1900 sold in the US with a Chevy Nova and you can clearly see the familiarity. Jordan returned to the US in the early 70s after the Rekord D was launched and assumed responsibility for exterior design for Chevrolet (which had the lead on the compact cars) and that was the result.

The Rekord E was considered as the replacement for the Cimarron during the 1980s but was ultimately pushed to the Omega which we all know became the Catera. When gas prices/supply stabilized in the mid 1980s and with the unpopularity of the downsized Cadillacs, the idea was shelved for a while. The idea was brought back up for MY1992 to debut with the new Seville/Eldorado, but again was shelved due to financial pressures. It lingered again until we got the Catera. By then the concept was 10 years old and the novelty wore off.

Really interesting. I like both the Rekord D/Opel 1900 and Disco Nova a lot… plus Google tells me that Chuck Jordan was responsible for the ’92 Seville and Olds Aurora as well, so the question is: where the hell was GM hiding him between ’75 and ’92?!

If a car like the Catera had come out in the mid-80s, I think it would’ve been a completely different story than what happened a decade later.

As we know, Bill Mitchell retired from GM in 1977. It was no secret that Mitchell’s preferred replacement was Chuck Jordan. Chuck was very much of the same personality of Mitchell, maybe to a slightly lesser degree. He loved crisp angular designs, as evidenced by the 59 Cadillac and 92 Seville, both of which bear his touch. Mitchell, of course, was flamboyant and very well known but also very in your face and confrontational, he was not easily pushed over. When he announced his retirement, some GM executives were none too unhappy to see him go. With the changing times of the 70s and the corporate decision to go FWD, corporate people wanted to reign in the various entities and engage in more central planning. It was assumed that Jordan would be a shoo-in for VP Design job, the process was a mere formality. But a certain executive by the name of Howard Kehrl took it upon himself to derail Jordan’s career. He managed to convince the bosses and GM CEO Tom Murphy that Mitchell should be replaced not by Jordan but by Jordan’s underling Irv Ribycki. It was done, Jordan was furious and only under the threat of his job did he even shake Ribycki’s hand. GM management convinced Ribycki to continue Jordan as design director, essentially keeping him in his current position while Ribycki was promoted two positions, but it was a poor decision. Designers are prideful people and pride is often very hard to put down. Many people and things go into making a car, but a car’s design is the most visible thing and a tangible reminder of one’s work. Ribycki and Jordan clashed and were barely on speaking terms. By the early 80s, GM Styling reached a nadir.

Ribycki was chosen because he was a go along to get along guy, he had talents as a designer but less than Jordan and others, but was most notable for his management skills. He was a capable administrator and functionary and never challenged authority, the sort of guy the 14th floor wanted in the changing times after dealing with Mitchell and his legendary temper for 20 years.

Mitchell was widely quoted as believing that a good car design plus good marketing will make a car sell. That is why so many of his car’s were stylish, sometimes controversial, but always provocative and generally we’ll received, often with a “wow I never thought of that before.” Ribycki was a classical decision-maker by committee, he rarely likely to make decisions on his own and abhorred hurting people’s feelings and rejection. So that is why most of the 80s FWD car’s were bland and seemingly designed by committee because in effect they were.

Eventually Ribycki retired in 1986 and was replaced by Jordan who did what he could to revive Styling but by then GM was already beginning to struggle and corporate already had great sway over design. By then, we had already gone through the big reorganization of 1984 that began to dilute the power of the individual operating units.

GM sold a lot of cars in it’s history primarily on the strength of it’s styling. Yes, each car make had their successes and occasional iconic designs, but no one has had the sheer volume of good looking cars that GM did from the 30s on. Much has been said about the reasons for GM’s decline, including what I wrote about in May, but I have always believed that the loss of Jordan as Styling Chief was a primary one. Buyers of good’s will often overlook faults of a product if their love for the product overcomes those faults. Cars are no exception and despite sometimes major hiccups, until the early 80s, GM could do no wrong, mostly due to the strength of styling and marketing. There is no better example of this than a Corvette, which at different times was a shadow of it’s self and whose popularity defied logic. But yet even the seemingly worst models will have a loyal following and will always attract attention at car shows. It is an emotional thing, love is often irrational and the love between man and machine is often nearly as hard to understand as the love between people.

Who is to say how history would have turned out, but I often believe that if Jordan would have replaced Mitchell as intended, GM might have been in a better position.

Thank you for that excellent explanation as to how Irv Ribycki got that job. I was just an on-looker back than, the the plunge in creativity and risk-taking was all-too obvious. And the results were predictable.

Your comment would make an excellent post; a GM Deadly Sin, at that 🙂

Sean Cornelis

Posted June 30, 2013 at 7:56 PM

+1 Never expected to get that good, and detailed, an answer.

What a shame, I wish we had gotten to see what Jordan could have done with those cars. I don’t know if it would have saved GM completely, but I’m sure they would have been in much better shape. A lot of cars introduced from ’80-’86 were very close to being good, but not quite there… and they’ve always reeked of the “decision by committee” compromises Craig speaks of, which I don’t think jived with the automotive landscape back then at all.

Jordan only got 6 years in the saddle because he turned 65 in 1992 and his his mandatory retirement age for executives. Had he took the reigns in 1977, he would have had 15 years a lot closer to Earl/Mitchell and likely would have had more influence, critical influence during those transition years.

It wasn’t like Rybicki was without talent, remember he was lead designer for Chevrolet during the sixties while Jordan was in Europe, when Bunkie and DeLorean ran Chevrolet. Rybicki was the lead stylist for the iconic 65 models, as the story is known, there were initial approvals on the models, but ones that many on the design staff did not like. Rybicki green lighted a set of alternate designs, ones that ultimately became the carrs we know, behind the back of both Bunkie and Mitchell. Full clays were done and shown around. Predictably, Mitchell was pissed to say the least about this end run, but Bunkie liked it and promised to try to sell the new designs to corporate who had already approved the previous, more evolutionary designs. It was well known that Rybicki would have been walking dead if the changes bombed. But as we know, the 65 Chevrolets, all of them down to the Corvair, were beautiful and iconic and did just to put Rybicki in the driver’s seat career wise. Jordan was still the apple in Mitchell’s eye, but Rybicki was definitely on the radar screen.

Despite the success of the 65s and the 70.5 Camaro, Jordan was still considered the superior designer. On paper, Rybicki was eminently talented, his designs under Mitchell were generally well regarded, as he had Mitchell to run interference with management. The problem was that Rybicki was not a fighter, so while he was liked (even by Jordan until he was snubbed), and was not able to exert the dominance that those that came before him could. He basically did what he was told. While Mitchell oversaw advance design for the 79/80 E/K cars, Rybicki oversaw final approval plus the many other designs for lower volume cars that are generally well regarded. The problem was on the big jobs, like the high volume FWD applications that GM invested so heavily in, it was more take than give. A Jordan or a Mitchell wouldn’t be able to stop the similarity in design that is naturally inherent in a monocoque platform, but it is likely the cars would have been more distinctive. Who knows whether that would have changed the ultimate sales trajectory, but improvement would have been likely.

One thing I will say, the late 70s into the mid 80s were a time of deep transition both from a design standpoint and an engineering standpoint. A LOT of big bets were placed by all of the Big 3, and even AMC who bet by necessity to go to bed with Renault to try and ensure it’s survival. Some worked out great, some just ok, some terrible but it was a real shoot from the hip mentality in those days. 20 years prior, it was a big deal to make the decision to wind down the use of fins on cars considering how they dominated design at the time. We talked recently on this site about how Chrysler bet on midsize in 1962, which turned out to be wrong but was able to be somewhat quickly rectified as that Chrysler was able to recover and move forward. But such changes as were taking place primarily with the domestic makes during those years were so fundamental that you were passed the point of no return. You don’t commit $40 billion (adjusted) to revolutionize your car design and
engineering paradigm and expected to walk away. So in those days, we bet a lot but always worried that the next bet would be one bet too many.

Craig: Thank you for your insider’s perspective, I thoroughly enjoy it. Nowhere else do I know of can we come and not only enjoy some classic cars still doing what they were meant to do; but we also get to hear about the people and the politics that made these cars what they were! I can’t get enough of this stuff.

A book came out when the C5 Corvette was released and it detailed the entire design and construction of the C5 Corvette. It’s titled “All Corvettes Are Red” by James Schefter. I bought it when it came out and it was interesting to read of the dynamic between the principle designer of the C5, John Cafaro and Mr Jordan. “Tense” is a word that comes to mind, but I understand what was at stake with the next Corvette. If you want to know more about Mr Jordan, that book would be a great starter. If you google this book title, you will find most Corvette enthusiasts find the book a dry read that’s disjointed. I beg to differ. For me, it is a fly-on-the-wall account of the human confrontations that occur when like-minded ego’s clash.

I think he always said the Opel Manta A was a design he was most proud of. Even today, I can see hints of the Manta A in the new Camaro front end, the sloped shark face. He is well respected amongst Opelers.

Always wondered where Rybicki came from, and why. Heaven knows the corporation needed good managers at this stage; a happy fourteenth floor is all very well, but more than that it needed someone to design and put forward salable product. On the basis of what the corporation served up to the buying public, Rybicki doesn’t seem to have been the right one for the job.

That VN Commodore was wider that the Catera/Omega, and used the old model’s suspension – that’s why the front track looks so narrow. All the exterior panels were different from the Catera, too. Subtle, but different.
Am I the only one who thought the Catera needed a CT trim level?

My mother emmigrated form Germany but her brother remained.
He has had a succession of Opels since 1970;
Ascona A
Rekord D
Rekord E
Kadett E
Astra F being his final car he still has.
All autoimatics as my aunt wouldnt drive them any other way.
I have ridden in all oif these cars and remeber them to be quality cars with the Rekords and Ascona being especially nice looking.

The 50s Oldsmobile logo was a globe surrounded by an O (for Oldsmobile) and a ring. At first when I read this statement I assumed you were talking about the logo used by Oldsmobile from 1995-the end which was close to the Opel logo at a glance.

Ahh reminds me of when Opel and Vauxhall still were sold alongside each other in the 80s. By then there was so much commonality between the two but the plug hadn’t been pulled on Opel UK. So there was the Opel Rekord, Vauxhall Carlton, Opel Monza, Vauxhall Viceroy all occupying the same market space. By the mid-80s, GM realized the folly and cut the UK Opel range down to just the Opel-exclusive Manta. By the 90s, Opel had left the UK. But badge engineering lived on with GM NA!

Holden literally broke Opel based prototype cars in half at the firewall on the roads of North Queensland when testing. The bodies had to be re-engineered for Australian conditions so massively that it may have been cheaper and easier to design their own car from scratch. The cost blow out meant there was no money for much needed new six cylinder engines and Holden was left near financial collapse a few years later…

The origins of the VB Holden Commodore explained in the simplest of terms.
There was two Opels, one was the Rekford with the four cylinder and then there was the Commodore that had the six cylinder engine and a different body based on a similar platform
Holden took the longer front from the Commodore and grafted it onto the Rekford body, added the six and eight cylinder “red” motors and antiquated gearboxes and hey presto. The VB Commodore.
To add confusion, six years later they grafted the Opel Commodore body with the additional side windows to create the VK Commodore. Why Holden didn’t just use the Commodore body to start with is a mystery to this very day

I think you may be mixing up the Commodore with the Senator. The Commodore used the longer front end but the Rekord E body, whereas the Senator had the same front but a different body, including the six windows treatment. The Rekord was intended as the “base” saloon, the Commodore as slighty upmarket, using six-cylinder engines, and the Senator as the top-of-the-line model. While still looking mostly the same. Admittedly confusing.

Then they face lifted the VK series with a unique to Australia front and rear and fitted the excellent six from the Nissan Skyline for the final years for this body. Holden Commodore- a metaphor for Australia ( looks kind of European, owned by America, but powered by Asia) or just the ultimate cut-and-paste mobile?

Styles79

Posted June 30, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The VK didn’t get the Nissan engines, it still had Holden sixes, but it may have been the first to have fuel injection standard. The RB engines didn’t come along until the VL, which got the major facelift.

As a side note there was a VERY unique engine available in the VL, the Turbo RB30, which is ONLY found in that car as a factory engine, never fitted to any Nissan.

KiwiBryce

Posted April 27, 2017 at 1:14 PM

That engine didnt quite fit it was much taller than the Holden six it replaced, the head was well above the top of the radiator and would run dry if the level fell for any reason leading to very expensive cracking, It was the VL that got the Nissan engine as a stop gap as the Buick V6 wasnt quite ready and only appeared in the next model the VN.

Old Pete

Posted April 27, 2017 at 4:31 PM

I always felt the Buick V6 in the VN was a step backwards after that Nissan RB30. The VN Commodore was a real bitzer – a lightly-reskinned widened Opel with carryover suspension, a Buick engine, and an Oldsmobile roof if you got the Statesman version. A GM-global production, real parts-bin engineering. Sorta-iconic, yeah, but Australian?

johnh875

Posted May 4, 2017 at 6:26 PM

The Nissan six was a better engine, but exchange rate changes made it too expensive which drove the move to the Buick 3800

Cost is why plus doubts as to whether the Senator independant rear axle could cope with V8 torque, they went with the solid rear axle set up from the four and adapted the Salisbury they already had in the UC Torana which was also Opel/Vauxhall based.

Correct BeWo, as the Opel Commodore had a longer nose to accommodate bigger (six-cylinder) engines. Oddly enough though, Holden ended up dropping a four-cylinder – the Starfire 1.9 four – which was both a critical and commercial failure. A four-cylinder wouldn’t grace an Aussie large car until this decade, with the 2.0 EcoBoost Falcon

The four cylinder Commodore was popular and sold well in New Zealand, and Holden kept a four cylinder in the NZ-spec Commodores right up to and including the VK. For the VL we got the 2-litre RB20 Nissan engine, and for the VN we got the Family II 2-litre four cylinder. The VL 2-litre was extremely popular (despite being no more fuel efficient than the 3-litre). The VN 2-litre was only offered as a bargain-basement spec (oddly with the Berlina badge), and was not popular, so didn’t last.

Not quite Scott the four cylinder Commodore lasted in NZ until local assembly stopped there was no equivalent model to import from Australia. The Vectra Australia didnt have arrived to replace it, my brother found a Schofields van on the Auckland wharf one morning with mechanics regrilling Vauxhall Vectras as Holdens when he went to load used jappas.

No, Holden actually built quite a variety of models in Australia that they didn’t sell there (right back to the LJ Torana station wagon!). Once NZ assembly stopped, Holden Australia continued building the 4-cylinder (Starfire) VK, and 4-cylinder (Family II) VN for us (and likely other small export markets too). Same as how they built the RB20 VL Commodores for us, and those Opel straight-6 engined VR Commodore Royales for Singapore but which ended up here. I have all the brochures, and briefly had a 4-cylinder VK wagon (slow but surprisingly fun to drive with the 5-speed), and the deputy-principal at my high school bought a VN 4-cylinder Berlina new in 1990. They pop up occasionally on Trade Me too.

KiwiBryce

Posted April 28, 2017 at 2:21 AM

NZ assembly stopped in 90 or so none of those cars were actually built in OZ they were NZ assembly only
the LJ wagon was by Daewoo and badged Chevrolet it wasnt even marketed in NZ, but yes some have showed up,
Friend of mine just sold a VN four banger it was quite a good car and handled better than the six.

When I was working in Korea in the early 1990’s, Daewoo had a licensed version of their own called the Prince. The base engine, of which most were equipped, was a 1.8 litre of all of 95 hp. To provide acceptable acceleration, a very low final drive was fitted, which caused the engines to burn out at highway speeds.

They were awful cars; anything Daewoo could do to cheapen them out, they did. The plastics were of the greasy/shiny type and the interior, for lack of a better word, stank. Things fell off. Fuel consumption was awful. It really didn’t matter as the Koreans were so car starved at the time, they would have bought anything. In fact, the Prince was marketed as a luxury car!

I had a ’95 model years ago and I didn’t think it was too bad. Yes, the interior could have been better and the engine was too small. This was a result of lazy bureaucrats
who took the easy way out and taxed cars on engine size rather than a test cycle.
The engineers knew that a larger engine would likely improve overall efficiency
but then the road tax would have priced many potential buyers out of the market.
These cars had good points, such as the incredibly solid bodies. Didn’t you ever slam the door on one? It was a like a Volvo. The engine, underpowered as it was, was at least non-interference, so no timing belt worries. Mine was a stick (good old Borg Warner-T5), and 5th was quite tall. I used to cruise at 160k on the Kyungbuk all the time, and it felt relatively relaxed in 5th. It certainly didn’t feel strained.
Crappy as the city mileage was, highway MPGs were pretty good. I used to recommend these to people who were somewhat safety conscious, as they seemed to be pretty robust. I almost saw these as a Korean Panther or B-Body.
Also very comfy to sit in, Rubbermaid door panels notwithstanding.
On that note, I didn’t see the interiors as any worse than late 90s Tauruses.
Combine that with the simple engine, as noted above, and they were a decent buy in every way EXCEPT for fuel economy. I never put many miles on, so that point wasn’t really an issue.
Just make sure to pay the steeply depreciated used price like I did.

If I ever found a clean late production Super Salon Brougham version with the nice interior, DOHC, ABS and Airbags, I just might pick it up. Fat chance on that though, they are virtually extinct now.
I gave it away in ’99 in a somewhat acrimonious breakup.

Nice write up, Paul. American Ebay had a Rekord C listed about a month and a half ago for sale. Pretty design, it struck me as a 6/8ths scaled 66/67 Chevelle Malibu. It was unfortunate that the tin worm had done some work on it, thus requiring enough metal work to make the restoration a $$ one.

I believe it had the 1.9 engine. A great little motor that’s reliable as heck but not for those searching for a more refined feel through the steering wheel and exhaust note.

An granduncle of mine drove several Rekords (I remember the E2 he drove in the early nineties: big, comfortable, nothing inspiring, and food is consumed outside!) followed by an Omega A, another A, and a B. Another granduncle always had big Opels and still uses his Omega A estate he bought upon retiring from his job at an Opel dealership. My grandfather actually replaced his ’75 Rekord with a ’79 Chevy Malibu. Big, comfortable, conservative, all in all very much the European Chevrolet.

Like big American saloons, big Opels fell out of grace after the eighties. Opel held the position of “smaller Mercedes”, until Mercedes itself went downmarket. Anyone aspiring to own a Benz bought one of those, instead of an Opel. Ironically, in the seventies, Opels were perceived as more upmarket than Audis. Guess where that went.

I found this crash test video of the 1978 Holden Commodore last year. It looks fairly horrific – but there’s more to it than meets the eye. The test was done in 1992, and the car was loaded with sand in the front footwell and a 75kg weight in the rear. It was also fired head-on at the wall at 100 km/h instead of the more common partial-offset at 50-60 km/h. Still scary as hell though! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caOqD54oxRA&feature=player_embedded

I think you missed a digit, I think it was 375kg of sand (8-900lb), the test was performed during the initial calibration works at Crashlab, to test the concrete block etc.

It would be interesting to see the same test performed on a current car, given the improvement in body strength etc. For example 20 years ago in a 30-35mph offset crash test you would typically have some deformation of the a-pillar join to the roof which would make the front door a bit hard to open, nowadays they don’t even break the windshield let alone deform the central body.

Indeed it was 375kg, 300kg of that was the sand, the other 75kg was the dummy in the back – or so says wikipedia anyway (not that I always believe wiki!). Good catch – didn’t realise I missed the sand’s weight out above!

Here is my brother’s 1979 Commodore 2.5 Berlina. A few hours ago someone came and took it away. The old Opel is bound for the scrapyard I guess… The trouble with those cars in Switzerland are very tough inspections every couple of years, and if the brakes are anything but perfect or if there is any trace of rust, the car wont be allowed to stay on the road. I guess You know, what this means for rather unpopular cars like this one… My brother’s Opel is anything but a wreck, but it would take some serious idealism to repair the brakes, some suspension parts like a broken spring on the front left corner and most of all a defective cylinder head gasket.

Now that’s interesting – I spied the ‘Berlina’ badge on the front guard. Holden have called their mid-spec Commodore the ‘Berlina’ since 1984 (they still do), but I had no idea the badge originated on the Opel Commodore. And here in New Zealand, any ’79 Holden Commodore as tidy-looking as your brother’s, would still be on the road – although likely with a V8 conversion.

Opel apparently first used “Berlina” to label the top of the line Rekord D in 1975.

Paul called the Commodore A the “Pontiac of Opels”. I just found a nice advertisement of a Rekord D. The style of the illustration looks quite familliar… Obviously someone thought the humble Rekord D to be worthy enough to be honored by the talented artists Fitzpatrick and Kaufman!

My father always had a Rekord whenever we lived in Germany. Our first (and second!) were both 1971 models. I vividly recall the second one, as it was bought in 1978 when we returned to Germany. White, four-door and automatic (uncommon) with that great wind-up sunroof. He later painted it a gold-metallic after a 2.5 ton (deuce and a half!) took out the front fender. Owned it until 1981. After retiring, returning to the US and then going back to Germany in 1989, dad bought a 1980 Rekord…also white (what was it with white Rekords??), four-door but with that crazy deep red interior and this time, manual trans. By this time, I was old enough to drive and he’d let me use the Rekord to visit old friends at the bases we were stationed at. Certainly not the fastest car, but it was solid and very comfortable.

Our local baker drove Opel Rekord wagons during the seventies and eighties. Among them a Rekord E, of course. A perfect combination of a roomy family car and a delivery van. Most wagons were used as such in those days. Meanwhile C-, D- and E-segment wagons have become more popular than ever before.

Every time I see these, I am reminded what a colossal blunder GM made in the late 1960s/early 1970s by not Americanizing a version of this car to build in the U.S. (necessary for a volume product and to avoid the currency fluctuations that ultimately ended the German Opel’s run in America). GM ultimately Americanized the T-Car (Chevette), but the Rekord could have served as the basis for more premium (and more profitable) small cars. Such a well-designed compact would have been ready for battle with the Japanese brands, and would have been far more effective than the Vega/Monza and Nova cars. Call the Americanized Rekord a Chevy (as was done in Latin American with the Rekord-based Opala), call it an Oldsmobile… whatever. GM really could have benefitted by offering a nicely styled, good handling compact car in the early 1970s when many buyers showed a marked preference for nicely trimmed, economical cars that weren’t penalty boxes. The Chuck Jordan designed Rekord 2-door coupe, in particular, was gorgeous. Huge miss that this car never made it stateside–it could have changed GM’s trajectory…

I wished that for GM Canada, too. Those Opels would’ve made scintillating Pontiacs if given the chance. Case in point, The Rekord could’ve been a Beaumont, the Commodore would be a Laurentian, and the V-8 Senator could be a Tempest II. But alas, we canucks struggled with US copies (Sigh*!)

The boss got us the Rekord E 2.3 Diesel stationwagon to replace ‘ye old faithfull Peugeot 504 Diesel estates.
Everything about German cars reliability proved to be a myth.
My Diesel needed a new cylinder head because I complained constantly at the Opel dealers my engine ran so rough, they tried to send me off until I made a hughe scene, then an inspector from GM came and I was put right both camshaft and head were faulty.
At 120000 km the clutch was gone, the Peugeot still had its original clutch when we got rid of it after over 300000 km!!!!
But the worse problem of all were the poor, very poor brakes totally underpowered brakes and the rear axle, I blew up four diffs!!!! The Peugeot diff was twice the size of the poor underdesigned Opel.
The body was better, the hinges were better but you’d see the Peugeot as a faithfull friend you could rely on, rain, frost or shine, it just started, the Opel as a rather average bad designed underperforming tool.
Ow these Opel Diesels were horrific with winter starts, once they ran you had to treat them very very carefully with silk gloves.
Then once the Opel dealers gave me a big compliment when I picked up my car afted a service: they literally said ” we know only of one other Rekord Diesel which has run your mileage of 230000 km without a rebuilt engine, yours is apparantly number 2″
I ‘d still wanted a Peugeot !
And I did not even mention that the Opel could not hold a candle against the Peugeots roadholding and capabilities pulling a trailer .

As a matter of interest, what would the price difference have been between the Peugeot and your Opel? Here in Australia Peugeots were always looked on as superbly-engineered prestige cars, even when locally-assembled, and were priced accordingly. Not up with Mercedes, but enough to keep the average buyer away.

Both were in the same price range but the Peugeot was the lower L model, “powered” by a 2.1 liter Diesel, the Opel was the standard model.
The Opel had a higher topspeed, but we’d toggle along for distances at 120 km per hour. We’d travel through Europe to service ships in sea ports, something you could not do with a van back then because they were simply too slow.
That all changed with the first generation of Mercedes Sprinter CDI vans and oddly enough the FIAT Ducato. JTD models.
But by then I was the guy who’d send the engineers all over Europe.

I can confirm the Opel Rekord diesels sold in Israel as cabs could not hold a candle to the 504 in the reliability stakes. The same applied to the gasoline models. The Rekord sold reasonably well in its class but back no where as well as Peugeot’s 404/504/505.

Nice history Paul, it could have been the Vauxhall ten and twelve that morphed into the Wyvern then Victor before becoming a rebadged Opel in the 70s, a mash up of the two brands styling is the early Holden story with a little obsolete Chev styling sprinkled over some of the late 50s cars,

When I was a child in the 1960s and early 1970s there were still a few late ’50s and early ’60s Opel Rekords around, and also the station wagon version, the Opel Olympia Caravan. They were sold by Buick dealers.

Then along came the Opel Kadett which replaced the Rekord and Olympia in the U.S. and which did not compete so directly with the compact Buick Special. I also remember seeing a few Vauxhall Victors from the same era which (to me) looked similar, but which were all 4-door models, while I only remember seeing 2-door Opel Rekords and Olympias.

My father owned a 1958 P1 from the time I was born in 1961 until 1970, when he bought a brand new Brazilian-built Chevrolet Opala, derived from the Rekord C; for me there was this feeling of relief to finally be up-to-date and keeping up not only with the Joneses but with the rest of the world: to my eyes the Opel was ancient, slightly post-war but very pre-sixties, with the panorama windshield and rear window and those ridiculously small wheels, its too weak and asthmatic engine for the steep hills of São Paulo ( a full stop at a red light mid-hill was a moment of high tension, since it took a while to get it moving again – and invariably there was a choir of honks behind us and of course that felt terrible) – anyway, the first thing he said when he arrived with the new car was “it’s a nice and modern car but it doesn’t have the built-quality of an Opel, and there’s zero chance that this car will be on the road 12 years from now”.
Sure enough, the Opel was duly sold and might even still exist somewhere if it was well taken care of, but the Opala was sold after 4 years, with rust already taking over large swaths of it’s body (and not beause of salt on the sub-tropical roads of São Paulo) and all sorts of minor and major mechanical problems beginning to apear. The picture attached is an identical twin of my father’s car, same color too.

Although I’ve never could experience driving them, I love the Rekord D coupé and the E2. Sadly both D and E2 never came to Brazil, as the Rekord C-based Opala ruled in the entire 70’s, people from GM may not even cogitated bringing the Rekord D here. During the 80’s GMB tested some Rekord E2, Senator, Lumina and Corsica to replace the Opala, but the instability of our economy left them only in the study, finally in 1992 GM could make the Omega A in Brazil 6 years later from its release in Germany.

In Iran the Chevrolet Royale/Iran was replaced by the Chevrolet Nova after 1977 and yet the Nova having been a larger car still shared those exterior design similarities with the Opel Rekord based Chevrolet. In addition, the last of the Nova sized RWD U.S. Chevrolet SS sports sedan was really based from the Holden Commodore also had roots from the Opel Rekord as well.